How tweet it is to see commmon sense!!

I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that the Court of Appeal judges avidly read this blog.

But it is encouraging when they agree! In fact it is simple common sense which has prevailed in the case of Paul Chambers.

You will recall from a couple of weeks ago that this was the case where he had been prosecuted and convicted of terrorist related offences after tweeting the words - "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/tweet-too-far.html

He was given a fine and ordered to pay costs.

His appeal against conviction was supported by Stephen Fry and other celebrities and has been successful.

The Court of Appeal said that you had to ask yourself how a person would react to the words –

"If the person or persons who receive or read it, (the message) or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344

In reality nobody reading his tweet would have believed for one minute that he was intending to blow up the airport. If he had said it in normal conversation it would not have been taken literally. So why should the fact that it is contained in 140 characters make it threatening?

What is alarming is that it has taken him two appeals to clear his name.

This does not alter the need to be very careful about what you put in those 140 characters. But it is good to see common sense prevail and to know that our most senior appeal judges have shown a better understanding than we saw in the earlier  courts - and given us all some clear guidance.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Twitter, The Press and the Rule of Law

Many of us remember the good old days – say 5 years ago (!) when a jury in a criminal trial knew nothing of a defendants’ background. They simply heard the evidence and made their decision.

In the age of the internet this is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. The dilemma was illustrated in the recent trial of Simon Harwood who was cleared of the murder of Ian Tomlinson during the 2009 G20 demonstrations. Some newspapers had archived stories on their websites referring to previous incidents during the police career of Mr. Harwood. Mr. Justice Fulwood was concerned that jurors might access these stories and be influenced by them so he asked the relevant papers to remove them from their sites.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-trial-news-websites

One can see the concern. Viewing such incidents could indeed affect their view of the defendant. But there is a real problem in trying to control what gets onto the web. If it is not on these sites it will be somewhere and it is near impossible to police.

Remember the all encompassing injunction obtained by Ryan Giggs to prevent publication of details of his private life? He was forced to waive his anonymity after over 75,000 posted his details on twitter –

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/9095826/Ryan-Giggs-finally-gives-up-anonymity-over-Imogen-Thomas-affair.html

So while the judges have a genuine concern where does leave us in an age where it is effectively not possible to conceal events from a defendants past? We have contempt laws to ensure that a defendant has a fair trial based on the evidence. That has been a cornerstone of our justice system and should certainly be protected. But has the time come for society to acknowledge that material is going to be out there so we need to trust jurors to be able to make their decisions on the basis of the real world in which we all now live?

I can see why judges will need to carefully explain to the jury the dangers of taking notice of anything they might have seen online. But I do not see how they can even begin to try and block such information which will inevitably turn up elsewhere.

I have said before that sites like Twitter are not all good and they can cause injustice. But equally I think that it is unrealistic to censor the internet which, for the time being, seems to be more powerful than maybe we would like.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

The Power of the Tweet

Hands up if you still think that tweeting is something a budgie does?

I must confess it took me a long time to get into Twitter. I had dabbled in Social Media generally, especially MySpace and then Facebook. But I didn’t really get the point of Twitter. I couldn’t get my head around the idea of not having a ‘page’ and of limiting posts to 140 characters.

Ironically it was only when I read How to Leave Twitter by Grace Dent that the penny dropped.

It is now the platform I use the most! It is such an effective way of getting a simple message to a huge audience very quickly. The maths speaks for itself. If I tweet to a thousand followers and just ten of them retweet to another thousand, and so on, then we are talking massive numbers.

This point is made by well known legal blogger Kevin O’Keefe who says that an effective tweet can be more effective than any press release. He talks of one PR Professional who says she is 9 times more likely to get a response on twitter than by sending a press release.

http://kevin.lexblog.com/2012/05/07/twitter-more-valuable-than-press-release-for-law-firm-public-relations/#.T6i159tQmUw.twitter

This is the potential power of social media generally and Twitter in particular. We all need to be aware of the power of the tweet. Of course it is not always good news. I have talked before about the dangers of tweeting first and thinking later –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/think-before-you-tweet.html

It can even shake governments - Amnesty International is beginning to highlight those who see the influence of twitter. They have today reported on the case of Nabeel Rajab a human rights activist who has been arrested in Bahrain for posting tweets that criticised the government.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gNdhvpjEB_sH9zVfmvpChDbILDpw?docId=CNG.41380f9fd13a9cf5399ea138e7f20afb.a11

Such is the power of the tweet. Twitter, if properly used, can be the most effective form of marketing and communication for lawyers.  It is a powerful tool to be used with careful thought. To ignore it is to be well and truly left behind!

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk